verify
Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Verify a completed plan phase against the plan in a fresh session; produce a PASS/WARN/FAIL report and commit on pass.
188 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Doist/todoist-aitheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- udecode/better-convextheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- pytorch/heliontheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- amir20/dozzletheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Doist/todoist-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use instinct-export, instinct-import and 9 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-export
Export instincts from project/global scope to a file
Also in 3 projects that use this
TheKREATORSSkillinstinct-import
Import instincts from file or URL into project/global scope
Also in 3 projects that use this
AviadPSkillrisk-assess
Assess the risk and blast radius of a proposed code change before implementing it. Evaluates CI impact, framework-wide vs localized scope, rollback path, and identifies blindspots. Use when user says "what's the risk", "is this safe", "assess the impact", "risk assess", "blast radius", or before applying framework-wide or CI-affecting changes. Do NOT use for code quality review (use code-quality) or plan validation (use design-validator).
Also in 3 projects that use this
diego-tobalinaSkillbuild-fix
Fix build and compilation errors systematically. Run when build fails.
Also in 6 projects that use this
AaravChadhaSkillsecure
Security review with a confidence gate - a finding exists only with a concrete exploit scenario and a high/medium/low confidence rating; everything else goes to a worth-hardening list, never inflated. Sweeps five surfaces: auth gates, secrets hygiene, injection and unsafe sinks, unsafe deserialization/crypto/transport, and LLM tool-use trust boundaries. Reports only, never fixes. Use when the user asks for a security review or to check vulnerabilities, secrets, or auth.
Also in 3 projects that use this
ArvorCoSkillspecify
Create feature specification from natural language description. Use when starting a new feature or creating a spec. Triggers on: create spec, specify feature, new feature spec.
Also in 10 projects that use this
- +1 more from TheKREATORS
Other versions188 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 188
- react/react★ 252ksame name
- facebook/react★ 252ksame name
- garrytan/gstack★ 141ksame name
- oven-sh/bun★ 97ksame name
- anthropics/financial-services★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/financial-services-plugins★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- anthropics/claude-quickstarts★ 19ksame name
- NVIDIA-NeMo/Speech★ 19ksame name
178 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- actionableSkill
- astro-bootstrapSkill
- astro-patternsSkill
- autopilotSkill
- axon-code-intelSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- commit-conventionsSkill
- cross-repo-contextSkill
- django-bootstrapSkill
- django-patternsSkill
- executeSkill
- find-sessionSkill
- flutter-bootstrapSkill
- flutter-patternsSkill
- full-featureSkill
- intelSkill
- nextjs-bootstrapSkill
- nextjs-fullstack-bootstrapSkill
- nextjs-fullstack-patternsSkill
- nextjs-mui-bootstrapSkill
- nextjs-patternsSkill
- nextjs-shadcn-bootstrapSkill
- orchestratorSkill
- phase-breakdownSkill
- plan-and-scopeSkill
- prdSkill
- reactSkill
- recallSkill
- reflectSkill
- relaySkill
- rememberSkill
- scaffoldSkill
- scratchSkill
- tailwindSkill
- ux-specSkill
- ux-to-promptsSkill
- verify-astroSkill
- verify-djangoSkill
- verify-flutterSkill
- verify-nextjs-fullstackSkill
- verify-nextjs-muiSkill
- verify-nextjs-shadcnSkill
- verify-nextjsSkill
- visual-feedbackSkill
- work-disciplineSkill
- worktreesSkill
- wrapSkill
- write-as-friendSkill
- write-as-humanSkill
- writing-clearlySkill
- writing-skillsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
17 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 167 edited versions we read keep these.
11
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 13
Look for plan.md in the current directory, then ../plan.md.
- Distinctive: line 17
If the user specified a phase number, use that.
- Distinctive: line 21
Read the phase's objective and tasks, then systematically check:
- Distinctive: line 23
Does it work?: Run the test suite. Report pass/fail counts.
- Distinctive: line 25
Is it safe?: Check auth, validation, input sanitization, no data leaks.
- Distinctive: line 27
Is it scoped correctly?: No work that belongs in other phases, no missing pieces.
- Distinctive: line 31
If the phase produced or modified API endpoints:
- Distinctive: line 32
Verify the integration summary exists and matches the actual serializers/views
- Distinctive: line 33
Check that request/response shapes in the summary match the code
- Very specific: line 39
Check if .claude/context/ exists
- Very specific: line 44
Read the Last updated date from the header comment
- Very specific: line 45
If the date is still the literal YYYY-MM-DD placeholder, the file is an unfilled template — report it as "Template (run /intel)" rather …
- Distinctive: line 49
Check ROUTER.md cross-references: verify each listed file actually exists
- Very specific: line 53
If context is stale or missing, suggest running /intel to refresh or /remember to add missing entries.
- Distinctive: line 103
If the verdict is PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS (and the user approves), commit all changes for the phase:
- Very specific: line 106
Write a clear commit message following commit-conventions (e.g., feat(auth): implement phase 1 — user model and API)
- Distinctive: line 115
PASS WITH WARNINGS: Ask the user whether to commit now or address warnings first.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 167 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Verify a Phase
You are reviewing a completed phase against the implementation plan. You should be running in a fresh session — not the same one that wrote the code.
1. Find the Plan
Look for plan.md in the current directory, then ../plan.md. If not found, ask the user where it is.
2. Identify the Phase
If the user specified a phase number, use that. Otherwise, look at recent git history to determine which phase was just implemented, and confirm with the user.
3. Review Against the Plan
Read the phase's objective and tasks, then systematically check:
- Does it work? Run the test suite. Report pass/fail counts.
- Does it match the plan? Compare each task's acceptance criteria against what was implemented.
- Is it safe? Check auth, validation, input sanitization, no data leaks.
- Is it maintainable? Readable code, tests present for key paths, no dead code left behind.
- Is it scoped correctly? No work that belongs in other phases, no missing pieces.
4. Check Cross-Repo Contracts (if applicable)
If the phase produced or modified API endpoints:
- Verify the integration summary exists and matches the actual serializers/views
- Check that request/response shapes in the summary match the code
5. Check Context Health
Perform a lightweight check on the project's context scaffold. This is not a full drift analysis — just surface-level health.
- Check if
.claude/context/exists- No: Note "Context scaffold not present" and suggest
/intelto generate it. Skip the rest of this step. - Yes: Continue.
- No: Note "Context scaffold not present" and suggest
- List each file in
.claude/context/(includingpatterns/*.md):- Read the
Last updateddate from the header comment - If the date is still the literal
YYYY-MM-DDplaceholder, the file is an unfilled template — report it as "Template (run /intel)" rather than stale - Note the line count
- Flag files not updated in 30+ days as stale
- Read the
- Check ROUTER.md cross-references: verify each listed file actually exists
- Summarize findings for the report's Context Health section
If context is stale or missing, suggest running /intel to refresh or /remember to add missing entries.
6. Produce the Report
Write the report to the project root's docs/verification/ folder — one level above the sub-project you're working in. For example, if you're verifying work in ~/prj/my-app/api/, the report goes in ~/prj/my-app/docs/verification/phase-N-[name].md. Create the directory if it doesn't exist. All verification reports go here regardless of which sub-project the phase belongs to.
# Verification Report: Phase N — [Name]
## Summary
[One paragraph: overall assessment]
## Results
| Check | Status | Notes |
|-------|--------|-------|
| Tests pass | PASS/FAIL | [details] |
| Matches plan | PASS/FAIL | [details] |
| Security | PASS/WARN/FAIL | [details] |
| Code quality | PASS/WARN | [details] |
| Scope | PASS/WARN | [details] |
| Integration summary | PASS/FAIL/N/A | [details] |
## Context Health
| File | Last Updated | Lines | Status |
|------|-------------|-------|--------|
| context/architecture.md | YYYY-MM-DD | NN | OK / Stale / Missing |
| context/decisions.md | YYYY-MM-DD | NN | OK / Stale / Missing |
| context/conventions.md | YYYY-MM-DD | NN | OK / Stale / Missing |
| context/ROUTER.md | YYYY-MM-DD | NN | OK / Stale / Missing |
[Any broken cross-references or suggestions]
## Issues
### FAIL (must fix)
- [file:line] Description and suggested fix
### WARN (should review)
- [file:line] Description and concern
## Verdict
PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL7. Commit (on PASS only)
This step applies when you own the phase's work — a top-level manual review session. If a /autopilot or /orchestrator lead spawned you as the reviewer, do not commit: report your verdict and let the lead commit. The session that owns the loop is the one that commits.
If the verdict is PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS (and the user approves), commit all changes for the phase:
- Stage all relevant files
- Write a clear commit message following commit-conventions (e.g.,
feat(auth): implement phase 1 — user model and API) - Include the verification report in the commit
Do not commit if the verdict is FAIL. Fixes must happen first.
8. Next Steps
Based on the verdict:
- PASS: Changes committed. "Ready for the next phase. Start a new session and run
/execute." - PASS WITH WARNINGS: Ask the user whether to commit now or address warnings first.
- FAIL: List what must be fixed. Suggest fixing in this session, then re-running
/verify.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

